American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten]The vast majority of labor and innovation comes from the poor and middle class. [/QUOTE]As stated, that is complete bull. You are trying to intimate that the poor and middle class somehow account for the majority of GDP. You are also trying to fudge the line between labor and productivity. While I would be willing to agree that the vast majority of laborers come from the poor and middle classes, that is where it ends. As for innovation, I am afraid that you missed the mark here as well. Most innovation these days is created through investment by corporations. While individuals who come from the poor or middle classes may contribute to those innovations via work-for-hire relationships, they do not share the risk of the group writing the checks (including their pay checks) therefore they don't have the same interest in the upside.

[QUOTE=Esten]Of course many of them would not have jobs were it not for the rich. But the rich wouldn't be making fortunes without them either. These are the same workers who receive 50% of total wages while the top decile receives the other 50%. Over the period 2002-2007, their incomes grew only 0.8% per year, while the top 1% captured two thirds of income growth.

So I ask also: Why are the top few % entitled to so much of the wealth generated by other's labor?[/QUOTE]The left also refuses to recognize that contrary to what their finance partners (the unions) say, this is a services economy (services accounted for 76% of GDP in 2005) That is quite an evolution (can I use that term in this audience? From an economy dominated by subsistence farming, a little more than a century ago. This is why the SEIU has become so powerful.

Another fallacy that the left likes to hang its arguments on is labor. Labor is this, labor is that. This is because the left and the democrat party are bought and paid for by Big Labor (a cabal that makes the mafia and Big Oil look like pussies) If you want to see the purest example of profiting from the fruits of another's labor look at organized crime. I mean organized labor.

The fact of the matter is labor is labor. If it required much skill, it would be called "skilled labor" or if it required thinking, you can trade that blue collar for a white one. Unskilled labor is a commodity (one most people don't want)

While I do, sentimentally, miss some 'industry' I find it deliciously ironic that Labor has simultaneously accelerated our evolution to a services economy by pricing us out of the global manufacturing market, killed off many large employers (who employed union members) and shipped millions of would-be-union-dues-paying-member jobs to other countries.

What is even better is that the c*nts that love the unions for representing the little people over look the multi-million dollar pay packages that union execs receive and the billions spent on union infrastructure (seen the DC HQ lately) and lobbying (wonder who gets those gigs) These are the ones with whom you should take issue not with private citizens willing to risk their own assets to create jobs.

Mongers,

If this bill becomes law and is enacted nationwide, I will concur that the USA is becoming a Socialist nightmare and join the right-wing survivalist cause.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/us_time/08599200535800[/url]

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers,

If this bill becomes law and is enacted nationwide, I will concur that the USA is becoming a Socialist nightmare and join the right-wing survivalist cause.

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100721/us_time/08599200535800[/url]

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Next the Congress will seek to make us all Sitzpinklers!

So you guys defend writing false evaluations and other forms of worker abuse? LOL

This bill sounds like common sense. If you treat your employees with respect and fairness you should have nothing to worry about.

[QUOTE=El Queso]What a fallacy to think that those who work for a company, and take no risks themselves, are "entitled" to more because they see the people who put up the money to start and run companies making fortunes. That's called free enterprise. Anyone is free at any time to cut out and start themselves up to try to be successful.[/QUOTE]El Queso: We all agree on incentivizing and rewarding risk-taking and individual effort.

If your focus is on the business owner and the entrepreneur, your view is understandable. But if you are successful and start making a 7-figure salary, if you care about anything else in this world besides your own self-enrichment, you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible. Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts, the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs, the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc. Or even the community which gave you a big tax break. The real fallacy is the successful businessman who thinks he did it all on his own.

If your focus is on improving society, then your view is narrow and problematic given today's economic realities. The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one. And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital, and increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas. The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed) while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.

There is plenty of room to foster risk-taking and entrepreneurial effort, and reward those who do when they succeed, without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.

[QUOTE=Esten]you might consider sharing some of it with others who helped make it possible.[/quote]Estan, he did share. They got paid!

[QUOTE=Esten]Like the sales person who went out and aggresively won new accounts.[/quote]Paid!

[QUOTE=Esten], the engineer who came up with an innovative idea to lower production costs.[/quote]They were paid!

[QUOTE=Esten]the graphic designer who worked weekends for two months to get promotional materials ready for a big trade show, etc.[/quote]They all got PAID, with employer-paid benefits and taxes piled on top!

[QUOTE=Esten]The fact is there just isn't room for everyone to run a successful business or move up the ladder in an existing one.[/quote]Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.

[QUOTE=Esten]And there are significant obstacles to success as well: access to affordable education or start-up capital.[/quote]Yes, it's hard work, otherwise we'd see more people doing it instead of seeking the shelter of a structured job.

[QUOTE=Esten]And increasingly large competitors that are increasingly hard to compete with in many areas.[/quote]More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.

[QUOTE=Esten]The (by far) largest segment of society will always be people who work for others. When this largest segment is receiving only a small piece of the economic pie (with many living from paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford good housing, healthcare or education, or worse unemployed)[/quote]They got paid! If they want the bigger rewards, then they need to put in the extra hours and take the risks.

[QUOTE=Esten]while a small segment enjoys almost all the pie, that's when some people start thinking there's something wrong with this picture.[/quote]Yea, thinking "[I]if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves.[/i]"

[QUOTE=Esten]without continuing on the path of extreme wealth inequality we see in the US today.[/QUOTE]Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.

Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead i.e. work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.

In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad. Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! Don't point to GM or Chrysler as examples of "helping out" those were nothing but political payoffs to the unions by the Obama administration at the expense of the bond and stock holders.

By the way, the current outrageous salaries and bonuses of some CEO's are due directly to liberals. Back in the late 60's and 70's the wonderful liberal thinkers of the time decided the American business leader was much too cautious and conservative (back then the CEO only made a few multiples of what the "average" employee of his company made and was more concerned with long term growth and stability of the company) so to motive him (the American business leader) these wonderful liberals decided to tie salary / bonuses / other financial perks to short term performance. Well it didn't take long for CEO's to figure out they could inflate earnings through short sighted business decisions as well as accounting chicanery (with the AICPA turning a blind eye) to greatly increase their income and from that point on it has continued to spiral out of control and still does (AIG paying bonus to the very folks who got them in the mess to start with, et al) Now that the liberals ideas have come back to bite them in the ass they complain about the very situtaion they created.

So Esten get a grip and try to gain a basic understanding of the human animal. Most folks just want to play it safe and complain about how they deserve more without doing a damn thing about it.

End of rant.

Doppleganger

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Esten, first of all there are very few risk takers out there and it has been my experience most people would rather follow than lead I. E. Work for someone than strike out on their own and it has nothing to do with starting capital.

In my CPA practice I have often offered my employees 95% of what they generate in revenue less their expenses instead of a salary, guess what no takers. In many of the companies I have consulted for when asked for compensation models, where appropriate, I always provide the "eat what you kill" option in the mix with very few takers. The thing I hear most from non-skilled to skilled; blue collar to white collar; to professional employees with advanced degrees is "I need a dependable steady income and dependable benefits (health / retirement)". For the great majority of the folks I encounter no one is interested in riding the profits of the good times and digging into their savings / incurring more debt to cover expenses during the bad.[/QUOTE]"Eat what you kill" is all that I have known for 20 years. I have great years and I have had terrible years. I've been rich and I've been broke (twice) I have helped to build companies that employ hundreds of people and reached huge market valuations. I have never asked for help and it has never been offered to me. When I got wiped out, I stopped spending on superfluous stuff and worked harder. I created and I prospered. It is hell on the individual and even harder on the family.

The primary reason why the recovery hasn't shown up yet, is because our government is killing off the true risk takers, forcing them to sit on the sidelines or driving them to foreign markets to seek opportunity. In this current anti-business (particularly anti-small business) environment there has been so much additional regulation (I. E. cost) and uncertainty (I. E. risk=cost) added to the equation that it is difficult to start something new and even harder to finance it. The greatest constrictor on the flow of capital to new and growing businesses is risk. The worst kind of risk is undefined risk (I. E. we don't know what it is but, it is waiting for us down the road)

Because of the uncertainty created by our government, and for no other reason, the primary source of jobs in the usual recovery "small business" has been sidelined.

For example, within the 5,000+ pages of legislation (healthcare and financial reform) are hundreds of tax hikes (called different things) on businesses and individuals. They are discovering more ever day. No one really knows what is in there or what the effects will be. One example is the 1099 requirement for every expenditure over $600. I estimate that alone will require at least one additional clerical person for every 250 transactions (new computer, airline tickets, hotel bill, etc) to track all vendor usage, get the information (i.e. get AA's TIN, etc) fill out the forms and to ensure compliance. If I eat at La Chacrita 10 times at an average of $60 per visit (I know it doesn't cost that much) I now need their TIN. That new clerical person is going to cost me $35k plus benefits, insurance, etc. So my expenses go up by something like $50k for every $150k I spend (cost of goods sold) with no additional revenue coming in for the expenditure. If I make a gross margin of 33% and a profit margin of 20% , the additional expenditure means that I make no profit (i.e. I work for free) if I only do $250K in revenues. At $1 million in revenues the expenditure takes 25% of the profit that I would otherwise make. I am sure as hell not going to add other employees given the pay cut the government is forcing on me.

Why would any sane person with any business sense put such job killing provision on small business?

Another example, if I project that my new venture will make a 10% profit (i.e. the money the owners get to keep after everything else is paid for) once it gets up to speed (say in year 3) and I missed a few taxes or incorrectly modeled the impact of the legislation on my cash flow and I was only off by 10% , the owners (i.e. the ones who put up all the money) get nothing. Therefore, they (entrepreneurs and capital sources) wait or go somewhere else where the situation is more static.

[quote=]Liberals are always ready to give away someone else's money when they appear to be making "to much" but are nowhere to be found when these same people are going bankrupt, total hypocrisy! [/QUOTE]During the past 20 years, bearing 100% of the risk, I have contributed to putting many people to work and other activities that benefit the economies (local & federal) In exchange, my cost of doing business is going up, my income taxes are going up, my cap-gain taxes are going up and my property taxes have tripled (in just 10 years). My existence does not cost the local or federal govt anything. I do not use or enjoy any government services that I don't specifically pay for via direct fees. As for enjoying national security and local services (fire, police, public works, schools) I am paying for them many times over through my taxes. I pay for everything I use and for lots of stuff others, many of whom don't deserve it, use too.

WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers, and you must agree we are definitely the minority.

Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.

You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.

My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.

Doppelganger

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]WW, my post was for Esten, not for those of us who are the risk takers and you must agree we are definitely the minority.

Small business is the engine that truly will produce the jobs and growth to fuel any recovery and the Obama administration is totally anti business and it shows in the legislation already passed and that which is proposed. Even the economists are saying the Fed is doing too much and is the reason the economy is not on the road to recovery. Check the new jobless claims files this week.

You are quite correct about the new legislation creating a complete new world of reporting requirements which translates into more insensitive record keeping and reporting to the Fed. As you so aptly point out translates into additional costs for the business owner further reducing any profit generated from operations.

My point is risk takers are in the minority and liberals wish to punish risk takers by transferring what they have rightfully earned to those which have earned nothing.

Doppelganger[/QUOTE]I was agreeing that: 1) we are a small minority that power a huge chunk of the economy and 2) they (the left) is doing everything it can to destroy us (and U. S.)

The question that still remains is, who will pay for all this when we're all gone?

Save your key strokes, guys. He will never get it. His comments are so far off the mark that no amount of persuasion or debate will make any difference. Simply put: He's lost.

I guarantee you he's never started a business and never will. He may claim otherwise, but comments like that cannot possibly emanate from someone who has started a business -- unless perhaps it was a complete and total failure from the get-go. There's an old saying: Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. I'm not saying he's a teacher. But I am saying he's not among those who "can." Having never had the experience of taking the risks associated with starting an enterprise, he'll never get it. It's all just hypothetical. That's abundantly apparent from his posts.

I do have to disagree a bit on another issue: The new 1099 requirements shouldn't add much extra clerical expense. Any small business using even slightly sophisticated accounting software, e. G. Quickbooks, can easily track how much they pay vendors. Credit card transactions might be a bit more difficult, but they always have been. At the end of the year, you simply load your 1099s and push a button. You do need to get more TINs from vendors, but once you enter that info, it's pretty much a breeze. You may jam up your printer and the mailing expense and weight of these things (for mail carriers) will be significant, but they're not that hard to process.

The real question with the new requirements is "why?" The only real answer is that government doesn't trust businesses. It's a silly, unnecessary requirement characteristic of this administration, which also suffers from a paucity of "doers" and an overemphasis on academics, professional politicians and socialists in sheep's clothing. At base, that's one of the chief problems as I see it. These folks are making regulations for areas in which they have utterly no experience, from the perspective that all business is partially or wholly evil, and they're really making a grand mess of things. It will take decades to undo the carnage.

At the beginning, I was willing to give Obama a chance and posted comments to that effect here. But, there's a point where you need to stop giving second, third and fourth chances. Simply put, I was wrong and I'm no longer willing to entertain that this administration has the best interests of [b]all[/b] American people at heart. Folks can call that being closed-minded, but if you don't learn from experience, then you're a fool. At this point, only fools can claim that this administration has the country on the right track. Unfortunately, polls show that 44% of the country are fools. Still, there's reason for hope: About 20% of the country has figured it out over the past year, and that number increases each month. Esten, I'm afraid, will never be amongst them, not with what he's passing off as logic here.

Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.

WW, well for me, I intend to take my money off shore when I retire, move to BA and live the quite life surrounded by beautiful women, quietly passing away with a big smile on my face at 110 after a session with a 19 year old chica.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.[/QUOTE]I agree with that. The health care legislation is the largest government debacle of anyone's lifetime. As someone who runs a company that employs between 800-2000 people, depending on the time of year, this legislation likely will force us to [I]drop[/i] health care coverage. We pay at least 80% of the health insurance tab and 100% of the dental for any who want it. We pay 90% of health care coverage for some, and 100% for others. We didn't do this because we were forced to by the government. And, contrary to Esten's perverted logic, folks who are making money do, in fact, give back without government compulsion.

Separate and apart from recordkeeping requirements, however, the new health care laws will make it far more expensive for us to provide coverage, so we'll eventually have to dump it and pay the fine. Eventually, everyone will look to the government as the providers of health care manna, which was the Democrats' true intention in passing this legislation. They wanted to build a new dependency. But, as anyone who looks at the disasters surrounding government-funded pensions around the country can attest, eventually the costs will spiral out of control and the entire system will collapse under its own weight. The truth is, there is no free lunch. The government's effort to legislate away this basic fact of life will only mean that we pay far more later for the supposedly "free lunch."

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Stan, it's not the 1099 so much since those expenses are easly to track and any accounting system worth its salt will take care of it, it is the reporting requirements for the healthcare BS that is going to drive everyone nuts. They still have not figured out exactly what the want - still waiting for the rules to be rendered.

WW, well for me, I intend to take my money off shore when I retire, move to BA and live the quite life surrounded by beautiful women, quietly passing away with a big smile on my face at 110 after a session with a 19 year old chica.[/QUOTE]The 1099 headache will be bigger than you think. I use quick books and have no doubt that if I enter every non-EFT transaction by hand, I will be able to track them. However, I will have single days when I could trigger 30-50 1099s and I can be working on behalf of 10 different companies. I will then need to get 30-50 TINs, I will then have to physically enter the info and there will be a need for human oversight, therefore it's a clerical position not an accounting one.

I presented the 1099 issue as an example of the stuff that is hidden in the legislation. Put them all together and kiss your profits goodbye.

The surface reason for the 1099 stuff, as I stated before, is to enable the IRS to model all of our businesses in order to let the government control our businesses and tax us to death. One more step to Orwell's vision.

However, there is a pattern in the administration's behavior (abetted by congress): 1) the 1099 issue, 2) the tax on buying and selling gold coins (contained in the health care legislation) 3) the 2000 or so dealerships Obama forced GM and Chrysler to close were primarily in rural, white, red state areas (the Inspector General's report is scathing on the racism shown by the Obama Admin in this process) and 4) the lack of a response to the gulf oil spill.

These all disproportionately impact voters who didn't support Obama in the last election: Small business owners, self-made individuals, conservatives, and red state citizens (a significant majority of whom happen to be Caucasian) The good thing is that America is sick of this Marxist and will go along way to making up for the colossal mistake of electing him, come November.